Otherwise Occupied - blawgging

I'm not the only one!

gregh — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:49:14 -0500

Every now and then, I take some ribbing for the "Friends" references I make. But today, at blawgging heavyweight Concurring Opinions, I find I'm not the only one.

Concurring Opinions: Put Your Hands Together:

In an episode of Friends, Joey, a notorious womanizer, is eating fresh-made jam directly from the jar. Chandler says, "Hey, Joe. I gotta ask. The girl from the Xerox place--buck naked [holding up one hand], or [holding up the other hand] a big tub of jam?" And Joey says, "Put your hands together." That is how I feel about movies and tax. Put your hands together! Lucky for me, such a fantasy place does exist: movie tax credits.

Granted, in this post, Prof. Lawsky provides a little more context than I might typically provide in my "Friends" references. There probably aren't enough "Friends" geeks in my readership for many to understand the reference here, for instance.

Regardless, I'm just hoping this is a sign of the practice taking off. Soon, such references will be common and meaningful to all!

Check out Stan!

gregh — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:28:42 -0600

My friend Stan Radtke has thrown his hat into the blawgging arena. Check him out at nodeportation.blogspot.com.

Of particular note, Stan has announced that the paper he was slaving over seemingly forever is being published, but even more noteworthy is that, less than 6 months out of law school and awaiting bar results, Stan has worked on his first write of cert for the US Supreme Court.

More on getting it.

gregh — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:50:00 -0500

Earlier, I posted with a fairly abrasive title, suggesting that a newsletter about blawgging that is available only by email struck me as odd. The newsletter publisher, Sheryl Sisk Schelin, of blawg The Inspired Solo, posted some thoughtful responses as comments on the original.

I bring this back up largely to address the thought more completely.

The title of the post was, "How to convince me you don't get it." (emphasis added.) I completely understand her points. Chunks of my day job have been spent proselytizing on the benefits of syndication and "Web 2.0." Other chunks of my day job have been spent wedging email notifications into products where moderately flexible feed notifications exist. I understand that it's a small community that truly gets feeds.

That it's a small community that gets it is precisely why I feel that those pushing blogs (and blawgs) should be utilizing the technologies to their utmost. That readers may not all use feed readers or even understand what that means, however, doesn't diminish the importance of using feeds for publishing. It makes it more important!

There are tools, such as Feedburner Email, to allow the recalcitrant users to subscribe to feed-based publications via email. There are tools in most publishing platforms to do the same. It's certainly possible to publish by feed and allow subscriptions via email, all without the user knowing what's going on at all. But more importantly, surely part of that publication will be education, and what better way to educate a user about the feed than to give examples of the the precise content they're looking at as a feed?

Obviously, publishers may publish however they want. However, in my opinion, if one truly gets and values syndications and feeds, it only makes sense to publish everything appropriate via feed and to make allowances for others when needs arise.

How to convince me you don't get it.

gregh — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:28:01 -0500

Introducing the Inspired Blawggers Newsletter!:

You might notice, if you're reading this on the blog's website, that I've got a new addition to the sidebar - a prominent link to a new page where you can sign up to join the newly minted Inspired Blawggers newsletter mailing list!

This newsletter is going to feature all new content - stuff you won't find on Inspired Solo or anywhere else, for that matter. Articles written exclusively for the newsletter will include a host of topics of interest to lawyers who blog:

"I will inspire you to be a better blawgger by forcing you to sign up for an email newsletter."

For those of us who realize the benefits of syndication, the notion of being forced into email newsletters is crazy. Email doesn't allow for the richness, the linking, the sharing, or the cataloging that syndicated web content does. There is really only one compelling reason to make this sort of move: identification of readers to advertisers. That's hidden in code here: "in addition to new and exclusive content, subscribers will also receive advance notice of new services and products from Inspired Consulting. . . ." But then there's my favorite: "regular “best of the blog” feature where I’ll highlight some of the most useful posts at The Inspired Solo since the last newsletter was issued."

Tell me again how an email newsletter is supposed to inspire me about blogging? And please, tell me how seriously I'm supposed to take a blogger who resorts to a an email newsletter for content distribution.

Legal Ethics Reading Assignment

gregh — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 13:00:03 -0500

Introduction

On April 16, 2007, Judah Nathanson and I will be making our Legal Ethics presentation on "Attorney Blawgging." This post contains our reading assignment for that presentation. There are three parts to this assignment. The first provides some general background on blogs, blogging, and the area we as future attorneys are most concerned about, attorney blawgging. If you're already familiar with blogs and blawgs, you may not need to spend much time on this part. The second part is the meatiest and covers attorney advertising rules and how those impact blawgging by attorneys. Finally, the third part covers attorney-client relationships and other concerns.

Part I: Blogs, Blogging, and Blawgging

We would prefer to spend little of our class time discussing the basics of blogs and what makes them different from traditional websites. If you're unfamilarly with blogs, or if you only know that you might read them on occasion, please read the following:

Read Wikipedia's Blog entry
Read this blog post on blog syndication.

Next, focus a bit more on the world of legal blogging, often referred to as "blawgging." There are several directories of blawggers. For many examples of attorney blawgs, see this directory. (Note that they use one 'g'; other uses two. We're using two.) The company powering this directory, Justia, is in the business of selling marketing solutions to law firms, including a blawgging platform.

Part II: Attorney Advertising

Advertising is the space where blawgging is most directly restricted.

California

First, consider the California State Bar Act:

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6157, particularly (c) and (d).
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6157.3
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6158

And then, the California Rules of Professional Conduct:

Rule 1-400, in particular (A), (C), (D), and (F)

Finally, the following CalBar Formal Opinion on the status of websites:

2001-155

ABA Model Rules

Kentucky

Ben Cowgill's Summary

New York

The displinary rules covering attorney advertising have been a hot topic of conversation over the last 9 months. See the following for the details and the redline version of the rules as adopted:

Part III: Confidentiality, Attorney-Client Relationships, and Other Concerns